Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind that large industrial users in the United Kingdom face the highest gas prices in Europe, despite our having a fully liberalised gas market and remaining the largest producer, does the Minister agree that the lack of liberalisation of continental gas markets is causing distortion which could cost UK gas consumers as much as £10 billion this year,? Why did the Government not push hard for the liberalisation of the European gas energy market when they held the presidency of the European Union?

Malcolm Wicks: The one bit with which I agree is that the situation produces distortion and extra costs; it certainly did in 2005. I agree with that data. For 10 years or so, British industry and the British domestic customer paid far lower prices than the average in continental Europe, but there are now serious difficulties. We are pressing very hard on the matter, which was a key priority for us when we held the presidency. If the hon. Lady had been at the Energy Council, she would have found that that was the case. Two commissioners have produced strong reports on the need for liberalisation; we are pressing hard and the Commission has indicated that it will take legal action against those blocking the path.

James McGovern: Unfortunately the press and the Opposition seem to have largely ignored the recent increases in the national minimum wage. The Minister has just pointed out that many people will benefit from that and I am sure that they appreciate it. I am concerned, however, about the number of women who are on the national minimum wage. I am sure that everyone agrees that they benefit from the national minimum wage. However, real action is needed to reduce that number. If the Government are going to bring forward proposals to cut the gender pay gap, I hope that those proposals will address not only the glass ceiling at the higher end of the pay scale, but the sticky floor that sees a disproportionate number of women on the national minimum wage.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that small businesses have extended the right to request flexible working, just as larger businesses have done. In particular, I commend the Work Wise UK campaign which is supported by the Government, as its purpose is specifically to ensure that businesses of all sizes up and down the country are aware of the obligation to offer the right to work flexibly as well as the benefits of flexible working in reducing turnover and preventing the waste of talent that is often the price of inflexible working patters. Everyone who has stood up for those proposals for many years can be proud of their success.

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend is right that if we have as many start-ups by women as in the US, there would be considerably more businesses. The figures are changing. There is good news that there are more women starting up businesses. We estimate that there are about 500,000 more businesses. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right. I will continue to do all that I can to promote this issue. Specifically, some of the work that we are undertaking is to ensure that the regional development agencies, which deliver our business support, are ensuring that appropriate advice is given to women, as women undertake these activities in a different way. In particular, often starting up when not being in work and taking on self-employment to fit in with family responsibilities.

Gordon Banks: My right hon. Friend may not be aware of a situation in my constituency, where in Crieff, in South Perthshire, as many as 40 residents are facing eviction from a caravan park because of a legal argument between the council and the developer regarding the wording of the licence and planning approval. While I understand the role of the Scottish Parliament and Executive in this matter, will my right hon. Friend find time to have a debate on this subject so that we can try to determine the depth of the problem in the UK as a whole? Does he agree that the innocent victims, namely the residents, should not be the people who are victimised in such situations?

Anne McGuire: For every example like that, I am sure that there are examples of respite care provision responding meaningfully to the wishes and aspirations of local families. If the hon. Gentleman can specify examples of major difficulties, however, I shall be delighted to consider them and meet him to discuss them.
	We should not underestimate the scale of the challenge that remains in embedding the duties of the Disability Discrimination Act, especially for small businesses, which sometimes wrongly assume that improving access means a complete refit of their premises. The message that I have given to them over the past months, and that I will give again today, is that it is not about a massive building programme. Physical adaptation might be a part of the changes needed, but it might not be appropriate in all circumstances. Small businesses should consider the way in which they deliver their goods and services so that people can access them. That is about adjusting for better business, because it is good for business. We continue to engage in awareness-raising activity with employers and service providers, spending £6 million on publicity for the DDA extension in 2004 to ensure that there are no excuses, while at the same time highlighting the many ways in which employers and service providers can meet their duties under the Act.
	However, we were not content simply to implement the original Disability Discrimination Act 1995 fully; we always knew that there was more to do. As I am sure Opposition Members will recall, another feature of the 2004 debate was speculation on whether it was possible to steer a disability Bill through to Royal Assent in the remaining parliamentary time before the general election. We did fulfil our commitment to put a new DDA on the statute book, although I admit that we cut it fine: the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 did not become law until the last day of the previous Parliament, just over 12 months ago.
	One of the reasons why we were able to deal with the Bill so quickly was that it had cross-party support. Some may recall that after being appointed Minister for Disabled People last May, I wrote to all Members to celebrate the fact that we had managed to pass the Bill in record time, thus meeting our commitment to disabled people.
	As many Members will know, from December last year the new Act extended protection to a further 250,000 by covering people with HIV, cancer or multiple sclerosis from the point of diagnosis. People with mental health conditions will also find it easier to show that they are covered by the Act. Progressively, disabled people will have new rights when, for example, sitting exams, using transport services, renting property and joining or using private members' clubs.
	But perhaps the key proposal in the new Act is the introduction of the disability equality duty, which will come into force in December. From that date, it will no longer be lawful for public bodies to design services or carry out functions without thinking about how disabled people are affected. Public bodies will have to demonstrate that in everything they do they are considering the impact on disabled people, and that they have due regard to the best ways of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.
	I want to stress what I believe to be two important aspects of the duty: the need for public bodies to involve disabled people, and the need for evidence of how their policies affect disabled people. What do organisations need to know in order to promote equality for disabled people? Who are the disabled service users and employees, and how can they be involved ?
	I assure the House that this is not just a tick-box exercise. Most public bodies will need to have a disability equality scheme that sets out how they will answer such questions. I am pleased to say that recently published research on public bodies by the Department for Work and Pensions found that most organisations that took part in the survey had a disability equality scheme in place. On the other hand, fewer than half had involved disabled service users or disabled employees in the drawing up of their schemes.
	The new duty requires public bodies to involve disabled people in the drawing up of their schemes, as only through real involvement of disabled people will all parts of the public sector be able to identify and address properly the biggest barriers that disabled service users or employees face. We must recognise that if we are to deliver modern services that meet the needs of the whole community, we must ensure that policies, practices and services meet the needs of disabled people from the outset. That is key to getting the disability equality duty right. The duty will require public bodies to assess the impact of their work on disabled people.
	Ensuring that our policies and practices work for disabled people will also contribute to our wider aims and objectives. For example, we will not meet our targets on employment or child poverty if we do not take account of the needs of disabled people. The new duties must make us work and do things differently.
	We in the Government must also ensure that we meet our obligations under the duty. I am pleased that as part of the current consultation on the welfare reform Green Paper, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has agreed that the Department for Work and Pensions will work with the Disability Rights Commission to develop a "prototype" disability equality impact assessment of our proposals for the reform of incapacity benefit. Along with my ministerial colleagues, I am determined to play my part in making sure that our Government respond positively to the challenge of the equality duty.
	We are understandably proud of our record in extending rights, but I hope that this debate will focus mainly on our plans for tackling the challenges that lie ahead. As we all know, disabled people are more likely to live in poverty, to be out of work and to have fewer educational qualifications than the population in general. They are also more likely to experience prejudice and abuse than non-disabled people. We know that it takes more than legislation to change the lives of real people, and we are not prepared to sit back and see such inequality go unchallenged. That is why the Prime Minister, in his strategy unit report, referred to the challenge of identifying practical changes to help bring about equality for disabled people.
	Three main themes emerged when the report was published in January 2005. It found that users were too often expected to manage their lives around public services rather than providers' designing services to meet the needs of disabled people themselves, and that public services and support were planned and delivered in organisational silos that simply failed to reflect the complexity of real people's lives. Our lives are not organised to reflect the current organisational profile of Government at either national or local level, and we need to challenge that. The report also found that service providers rarely involved users in the design of public services. How can we ever get the design of services for disabled people right without involving the people who know best what needs to be delivered?
	At the heart of the strategy unit report was the belief that disabled people should be entitled to the same aspirations and expectations as those in the population at large. It contained 60 recommendations on how to achieve that across a range of areas, from early years education and support to employment and adult social care. I believe that the Government have grasped that agenda, and as a Minister I consider it a great privilege to be responsible for driving forward a cross-Government strategy to transform the lives of disabled people.

Danny Alexander: It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished contribution from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The issue that he raised is common to a number of constituencies. There are similar facilities in Inverness. Many of the problems that he described will be familiar to other hon. Members.
	I welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. The Minister was right to say in opening that there has been a great deal of cross-party consensus on the issues that we are debating—[Interruption.] Recently. Over a longer time scale, the Liberal Democrat party has played a role in seeing a way forward on a number of different disability issues, so it is good to have the chance to debate the matter. However, I reinforce the point that was made earlier from the Conservative Back Benches that it is perhaps a shame that this debate is taking place on local election day, when many hon. Members on both sides of the House cannot, for various reasons, be present. If the debate becomes an annual feature of the parliamentary calendar, as I hope it will, perhaps in future it could coincide with the publication of the annual report. It could become a regular feature—held on a day when more hon. Members could attend and take part.
	After all, according to some definitions—the life chances report makes this clear—there are 11 million disabled people in this country. To put that in context, that could be more than the total number of people who will vote in the local elections today. We are talking about a tremendously important part of the population and therefore a big issue for all MPs—not just those of us who happen to be present today—and their constituents. Many issues affect the life chances of disabled people and they cut across a number of different portfolios. There are many points that I would like to cover today, but I will not have time.
	There are a few issues that I would like to draw out from the strategy unit report. The Liberal Democrats welcome the report and particularly its focus on independent living, families with young disabled children, the transition into adulthood and support and incentives for getting disabled people into employment and helping them to stay there. We also welcome the Government's acceptance of the recommendations in the report.
	Importantly, the report is not based on a medical or impairment-based definition of disability. Although it does not explicitly state that it is adopting the social model of disability, its focus on the disadvantages that individuals experience as a result of barriers, both physical and attitudinal, is quite close to the social model. I hope that the Government will continue to develop that approach.
	Before getting to the main issues that I want to address, I should say that, earlier this year, I put a question to all the Departments asking whether they had already nominated a Minister to liaise with the Office for Disability Issues, the establishment of which I warmly welcome. The life chances report was clear that several of its recommendations were for all Departments and not just, for example, for the Department for Work and Pensions. I was pleased that nearly all the Departments responded positively. However—I hope that the Minister will take this point up with her colleagues—there are four that I would like to name and shame, if I can use that phrase. They have not, as yet, appointed a Minister to liaise with the Office for Disability Issues. Those Departments are: the Department for International Development, the Cabinet Office, the Northern Ireland Office and, last but not least, the Treasury. Perhaps the Secretary of State could ask his Cabinet colleagues in those Departments to fall into line with other Departments and appoint a Minister with responsibility for these issues.
	The life chances report emphasises the interlinked issues of poverty and work. The clearest indication that disabled people do not have the same life chances as the rest of society is the extent of the poverty among them. Child poverty and pensioner poverty are decreasing—perhaps not as fast as some of us would like—but poverty among disabled people is still high and rising in some categories.
	Some 55 per cent. of families with disabled children are either in poverty or at its margins, and 30 per cent. of working-age disabled adults live in income poverty—higher than the 27 per cent. figure of a decade ago and double the rate for non-disabled adults. Some 13 per cent. of working-age adults are judged to be at risk of developing a mental illness, but the figure is almost twice as high for the poorest fifth of the population at 25 per cent. About 800,000 disabled people between the age of 25 and retirement age are classed as economically inactive but wanting work, compared with only 200,000 who are officially counted as unemployed.
	Addressing the barriers to work is therefore absolutely key to tackling poverty among disabled people. Indeed, the life chances report makes that very clear in a table on the employment growth needed to reach the current UK employment rate, and by far the greatest employment growth is needed for disabled people—1.7 million is the figure given—to reach the overall employment level for the country of any of the groups highlighted in the report. With that in mind, I should like to turn to welfare reform.
	The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), the Conservative spokesman, explained the need to communicate clearly information about such issues, but we all have a responsibility to communicate clearly about the benefits that exist, so that no hon. Member reinforces whatever confusion may exist in people's minds and may be reinforced occasionally either by things that the Government say or by the way in which newspapers pick up on things that they say.
	The welfare reform Green Paper is obviously welcome, although it perhaps took a little longer to reach us than we had hoped, and there is still a problem in that it is short on detail in many respects, particularly in relation to the action that needs to be taken to help not only people on incapacity benefit to get back into work but, equally important, those people who suffered a disabling event to stay in work, rather than losing their jobs and moving on to benefits.
	All the evidence shows that people are much less likely to find work once they go on to incapacity benefit, whereas retaining people in employment should be the primary objective. In that context, I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the proposal for rehabilitation leave, which was recently made in a ten-minute Bill, as a way of making it explicit in law what is already thought to be a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
	Making it clear in law that there was a entitlement to rehabilitation leave for people in the circumstances that I have described would make it a good deal easier for people to assert their rights, rather than expecting people to have a detailed knowledge of the 1995 Act and what might constitute a reasonable adjustment in various circumstances. Likewise, access to condition management programmes for people who are still in work but perhaps having a period of rehabilitation leave, as opposed to only being able to gain access to such programmes when they have already lost their jobs or are on incapacity benefit, would be a valuable step forward.
	I should also like to ask about the overall target in the welfare and reform proposals. Again, the Minister made it clear in her opening remarks that the target was to get 1 million people off incapacity benefit over the next 10 years. There is a subtle but important distinction between targeting getting people off benefits and targeting getting people into work. Over the next 10 years, almost 1 million people who currently receive incapacity benefit will reach retirement age and therefore be entitled to claim pension. Of course, the Minister will no doubt rightly point out that many more people will be flowing on to benefits.

Anne Begg: I begin with an apology: I may not be available to stay in the Chamber for all the summing-up speeches. Unfortunately, the last plane to Aberdeen leaves earlier in the summer schedule than at other times. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) and I both missed the plane, and it took us some effort to get to Aberdeen the night we were due to arrive there. I have constituency engagements tomorrow—and although things have improved quite considerably for disabled people, hiring an adapted car with an automatic gearbox at short notice at Edinburgh airport at 11 pm or midnight is not presently open to disabled people. I hope that it will be understood if I cannot stay to the end of the debate.
	I intended to begin by listing all the positive things that the Government have done, but the wind has been taken out of my sails a wee bit. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) did the job for us. That in itself is a telling change, and I welcome the change in tone and mood from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman gave credit to the legislation that the Government have put in place. He talked about changing attitudes and about how the landscape for disabled people today is quite different from the landscape that existed in 1997.
	Because the changes have often been incremental and quite slow, it is sometimes useful for those of us who have been involved in the debate for a long time to reflect on how much has changed, how dramatic the change has been and how much it has speeded up in the past 10 years. People for whom the Government have made successful changes have a tendency to put those improvements in their pocket and say, "Thanks very much. What are you going to do for us now?"
	There have been changes in legislation and in attitudes—not just among those on the Opposition Front Bench, although perhaps that reflects their attempt to be closer to the people. They have sensed a change in attitudes to disability among people, whether they are disabled or not. The hon. Member for South-West Surrey said there was a mountain to climb. Unfortunately that mountain keeps getting higher, because our expectations keep rising, so he will find, as we have done, that as one gets to the foothills, it is even further to the first base. I welcome the hon. Gentleman on that journey. I do not want to be churlish, but in the past his party has not even got to first base camp, so it has a long way to go to catch up with everyone else.
	Attitudes have changed among disabled people themselves. No longer are they willing to sit back and accept discrimination as part and parcel of their life. Before I was elected to the House, I remember having a heated argument with someone who was involved with an organisation for disabled people. He was not disabled himself, but he worked and gave up his spare time to help disabled people. He believed that the only way to change attitudes was through education, and that legislation had no part in it. I argued that legislation set a benchmark and set the tone and the mood. People are generally law-abiding and once legislation is passed, their attitudes will fall in behind it. That is an important lesson to be learned.
	The hon. Member for South-West Surrey spoke about the time lag between legislation and the change that that legislation brings about. I agree that with race and gender that time lag has been substantial, but with disability, the time lag has been foreshortened. I pay tribute to the Government because it is legislation, backed up by action, that has helped to speed up change.
	I remember a time when small businesses would have been the most vehement opponents of the extension of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. They would have said that it was impossible for them to make any adaptations as that would put them out of business, and so on, yet the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has been one of the bodies most actively involved in changing their members' attitudes, to make them realise that those changes are good for their business. For service providers, particularly restaurants, there is money in disability. Disabled people do not go out and socialise on their own. They tend to go out with a crowd, so if a restaurant or a venue is inaccessible to someone like me it is inaccessible to all my pals, because we will not go there. There is a good business case to be made.
	For businesses that are struggling to recruit new employees at a time of high employment levels, skills shortages and in some cases a labour shortage, unless small businesses look to those who have been out of the labour market for some time because of a disability or a health problem, they will not find the quality staff that they need.
	Attitudes have changed. Discrimination still exists, but not to the extent that I remember experiencing it when I first started using a wheelchair. It is not as overt and in your face as it used to be. I took petty discrimination for granted and accepted it as being part of my life. It was not worth getting worked up about it, because I would have gone through life being angry and annoyed, constantly writing angry letters, constantly complaining and constantly making an issue of it. It was just too much effort, and it was often easier to say, as many people do, that that is just what happens when one is disabled.
	We are not willing to put up with that any more. That is what has changed. When discrimination occurs, it is more likely to be challenged. That is a good thing. As I said with reference to transport providers, unless people are prepared to complain, service providers do not know that further down the line, in the way that their work force are behaving towards disabled people, there is a problem. There is now a greater tendency to complain.
	Often when I have been out socially or in the course of my work and a blatant case of discrimination has occurred, I have had a sinking feeling and thought, "Oh no, not again. I'll have to write rude letters yet again." That happened to me recently. On Easter Monday I attempted to go to the cinema in London. I did not realise that that was such a foolhardy expedition. I did not think there would be any problems, but I tried three different cinemas to see three different films in the course of one afternoon in the west end of London, and I failed to gain access to any of them. That is a real condemnation.
	I can name the cinemas. At Cineworld in Shaftesbury avenue the lift was out of action, so despite the fact that it took me three quarters of an hour to get to the box office, which was a complicated route in itself, and no one had told me on the way that the lift was out of action, we had to turn round and come back. I could not get to any of the screens at that cinema. The next one was the Odeon West End, where the main screen is accessible, but not the screen where the film that I wanted to see was being shown. A number of screens at that cinema are inaccessible. At the Odeon Leicester Square, only one of the screens was accessible, not the second screen.
	If I had wanted to see Ant and Dec in their new movie, I might have been able to go. Unfortunately, that is not my taste in film. Of the more cerebral films that I might have wanted to see, none was accessible. The original film that I set out to see was showing at another Odeon, in Covent Garden, but the Odeon Leicester Square could not guarantee that it was showing on a screen that was accessible at the Odeon Covent Garden.
	I tell that story to illustrate how difficult it must be for visitors in London, and also because it came as an incredible shock to me. I have not been refused access to a cinema for almost 20 years. I remember when I was told that I could not come into a cinema because I was a fire hazard, but that was 25 years ago. I always thought that was a dreadful thing to say. Here was I, a non-smoker, regarded as a fire hazard, whereas the drunk man who was smoking next to me—remember, smoking was allowed in cinemas in those days, although it is allowed nowhere in Scotland now—was not considered a fire hazard. The injustice was appalling. Rightly, we do not allow that to happen any more.
	I was shocked to find that the cinemas in London have got round the DDA by saying that because at least one of their screens is accessible, they have made reasonable adjustments. The excuse was that it was an old building and they had tried very hard. The cinemas in Aberdeen have been accessible for a long time and I have not faced that problem. My expectation nowadays is that I will go out to the cinema at the drop of a hat to see a film of my choice, without major forward planning. When I was unable to do that on Easter Monday, it came as a shock and a disappointment to me. It is one thing to have the legislation in place, and another to make sure that it works.
	Things have changed. I welcome the Prime Minister's strategy unit report, "Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People". I welcome it because it will make things better for individuals and their chances to lead fulfilling lives, which is at the heart of today's debate. It has been announced recently that some schools are giving happiness lessons, and here the Government have a chance to make many people happy. Disabled people do not have outrageous expectations or ambitions; they just want to get on with their lives and enjoy them, with the minimum of hassle and barriers.
	If anyone wants a good night out, I would recommend going out with a group of disabled people. We often have a good laugh, even when we are being refused entry to a place. The truth is that if we did not laugh at some of the things that happen to us, we would end up crying. Disabled people are good fun in general—I realise that I am making a huge generalisation—and they have adapted to some of the worst excesses, which people who are not disabled would find appalling, and would be outraged if they happened to them.
	Yes, this is all about individuals and opportunities, but it is also important to the Government's ambition to end child poverty and reduce poverty more widely. There is no doubt that the link between poverty and disability is clearer and starker now than ever. The Government have been successful in alleviating pensioner policy and in lifting almost a million children out of poverty, but an important link remains—the link to disability. We have broken the link between old age and poverty and between having a family and poverty, but the Government have not yet broken the link between disability and poverty. The most disadvantaged families will often have a member with a disability—whether it be a child, an adult or a grandparent—who requires a high level of care. If we can improve the opportunities and life chances of disabled people, we can not only lift those individuals out of a cycle of poverty, but empower their families as well. At some stage we might be able to release those families from the burden of caring, which often inflicts poverty on family members as well as the disabled person.
	From my perspective, it sometimes seems difficult to speak about areas of disability because I am not really a typical disabled person. There is a danger of our ending up with two classes of disabled people. It is a horrible phrase, but there is a group of "high-functioning" disabled people—people, even with profound disabilities, who hold down permanent full-time and sometimes high-powered jobs. Last year two disabled people sought my advice on how to become an MP—obviously they think that I have the magic touch, but I am not so sure myself. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) may want to ensure that I do not remain an MP for much longer!
	The two people who sought my advice had profound disabilities. One was a young woman unable to move any part of her body, yet she works for the BBC; the other was a young man who can move only his head, yet he is a full-time barrister operating in court. People with profound disabilities thus have aspirations to become MPs, and are already in highly paid and highly skilled work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could be mentioned as falling into this category, as could Tanni Grey-Thompson and other elite athletes, such as those who took part in the London marathon recently, or in the Paralympics or the Commonwealth games.
	The danger of producing a disabled elite who are doing very well is that people sometimes say, "If they can do it, what's holding anyone else back?". The sort of life that that elite leads is different from the life of most disabled people, just as the life of an average MP is different from that of a single parent living in a sink estate in our constituencies. There is a big difference between what some disabled people can do and what others can do. However, that illustrates the fact that when people are given the right opportunities, the right education and the right help, the world can be everyone's oyster. It is possible to achieve—even in a society where some negative attitudes towards disability remain, where 63 per cent. of employers would not consider employing someone with a mental health problem, and where 75 per cent. of blind people are not in work. Even in such a society, disabled people can compete and achieve against the able-bodied, or anyone else.
	The reality for the majority of disabled people, however, is the key issue that we should address today—and it is that reality that the strategy unit report addresses. The problems and barriers faced by disabled people are often not the result of one Department: the problems are cross-departmental and relate to a variety of issues. It is often the silo mentality of local as well as central government that acts as a major barrier to disabled people getting the holistic help that they need to lift themselves out of poverty or other difficulties.
	It is interesting to note that the strategy unit report is a joint report between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—and I would like to add the Scottish and Welsh Executives to that list, because housing and health issues are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations, not just of the central Government here in Whitehall. Unless we get the different Departments working together to remove the barriers, the life chances of disabled people will continue to be disadvantaged, when it is just too much of an effort to access the help required.
	I have a word of warning—but I am just as guilty as anyone else. When I first got involved in the disability debate and argued in favour of civil rights for disabled people, I recall that the whole issue was viewed as a matter for the Department of Health. It was seen as a health issue, and only a health issue. That provides another example of how attitudes have changed, as we realise today that it is not just a health matter; it is about social mobility, transport, housing and a range of other issues.
	The danger today, however, is that we end up concentrating only on the world of work. As I said, I am just as guilty as others of thinking that work will solve all the ills of disabled people. Of course it will not—the problem is much more complex than that—but work can go a long way to help, particularly those who are able to work. Yet another example of how attitudes have changed is the fact that when I first entered the House in 1997 and expressed the view that I had held for the previous 20 years—that disabled people should be given the chance to work and that that was a good thing—I received a deluge of letters saying, "That is disgraceful. It is all right for you, but how dare you force disabled people into work?" I viewed work as providing opportunities, but encountered the attitude that we should not be bothering those poor wee things. I am pleased to say that, on the launch of the Government's Green Paper on welfare reform, that has not been the attitude to the proposals this time round. That was the attitude until very recently, although not necessarily that of disabled people themselves. Some people used to believe that it was outrageous for people who were already disadvantaged to be given help to get over it.
	I have already mentioned the Green Paper and I would like to discuss my hopes for it in more detail, but I am somewhat constrained because I sit on the Select Committee for Work and Pensions, and our report on the same issue is embargoed until midnight tomorrow. I am frightened of inadvertently giving away what is in that report and I do not want to fall foul of the House in that regard. I am sorry that I cannot say more about that matter.
	Moving on from my hobby horse of the importance of work, I want to discuss some of the other areas in which we must get things right. If we hope that someone will either remain in work or get another job after a major health episode, we must get the health service right. Although waiting three months for a hip operation—unfortunately, the wait is six months in Scotland—is much better than waiting 12 months or 18 months, as happened in the past, it is still too long if someone has lost their job when a new hip would have allowed them to maintain their position in the workplace. The same is true of people who could remain in the workplace if they received physiotherapy, because some of them have to wait three months to obtain an assessment of their bad back from a physiotherapist. Unless we get health services and social care services right, the Government's aspiration to help people to remain in work may count for very little.

Tom Clarke: I hope to touch on that important issue later, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who has made a remarkable contribution on these issues. I am sure that he, too, would agree that it is an important matter.
	On employment, particularly with respect to those with learning disabilities, I am afraid that it must be recorded that we have not seen the improvement in the past three of four years for which we would have wished. We keep pushing for that, however, and rightly so. The situation is not helped by the fact that disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to have no qualifications.

Tom Clarke: It is not like the hon. Gentleman to make what appears to be a party political point, and if he does not mind, I shall resist the temptation to respond. If I may, I shall simply refer him to the speech that I made during the Budget debate on the Government's record on employment generally.
	On the issue of disabled people—particularly those with learning disabilities—seeking employment, RADAR, like so many other disability organisations, has done a magnificent job. It has used the slogan that disability does not mean and should not mean "cannot work". It is right. It explains its view by saying that there are other factors besides a person's disability. Two people with the same condition may be in or out of work based on their own ability to manage their impairment, and based on the accessibility of their working environment and support provided to overcome barriers.
	Whatever we might think about the proposals in the Green Paper, to which, on the whole, disability organisations have responded positively, our policies simply must take into account the obstacles that disabled people face in taking up employment; provide a fair, objective basis for establishing eligibility for the reformed disability benefit; and ensure that absolutely no one is labelled unemployable.
	I believe that the Government should continue to focus their resources on those who face the most significant barriers to employment. The truth is that the targets set for Government programmes may not always encourage providers to work with people with learning disabilities, who may need more time and support to secure jobs. That is why the RADAR/Remploy task force—RADAR is the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—which was set up last August to find new solutions to the problems, has already drawn clear conclusions. I congratulate it on its work.
	The task force points out that individual support needs should be recognised in non-stigmatising ways, a point made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It also observes that work placements seem to work better than training courses, compensating for an individual's lack of confidence and inappropriate interview techniques. It is important to recognise the special needs of people with learning disabilities.
	A significant number of people with moderate to severe learning disabilities need to be helped both into and in work. If they are to gain mainstream employment, tailored ongoing support must be available. According to anecdotal evidence, people with learning disabilities are not being helped by pathways to work to the extent that the Government would wish, owing to the emphasis on condition management and rehabilitation in the system. That emphasis is not appropriate or relevant to the support needs of people with learning disabilities, or other disabled people whose condition is lifelong. Specialist incapacity benefit advisers must have experience of learning disabilities: that is profoundly important in the context of the Green Paper. Niche providers such as Mencap do not have nationwide coverage, so it is crucial for Jobcentre Plus to provide the programmes and support that are appropriate to people with learning disabilities, rather than relying on external agencies.
	I entirely accept that no Government can solve all those problems. We can create the climate, and I believe that this Government are doing exactly that, but employers have responsibilities as well. To be fair, there are examples of best practice among some small and large employers. More work must also be done to make the business case for employing disabled people, and employers who have seen the benefits of employing them are best placed to lead that work. The Employers Forum on Disability has done a first-class job, as has the Scottish Federation of Small Businesses. When I had an opportunity to examine the American experience, it seemed to me that American employers were the people who were explaining to the world how important it is—not just to jobs, and not just to disabled people—for society to accept its responsibilities to others, and to accept that the fact that a person is disabled does not justify the automatic discrimination that has existed in the past.
	More could be done to ensure that disabled people can retain their current jobs when acquiring and/or managing impairments and fluctuating conditions. When people experience temporary setbacks after several years of managing conditions such as epilepsy or depression, that should not cost them their jobs or, indeed, promotion.
	I note that the joint working group report of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, on employment for people with learning disabilities, has not yet been published. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, when she winds up, when it is expected. She will be aware that although I accept the main thrust of the Green Paper, I continue to urge the need for the utmost sensitivity. The spirit of such an approach was impressively put by RADAR in its response to the Green Paper:
	"Many disabled people have felt threatened by the Government's plans to impose sanctions on those who do not participate in work-focused interviews. The non-attendance rate for work-focused interviews amongst those currently involved in the Pathways to Work programme is less than 2 per cent. Given this low figure, RADAR sees no reason to place an emphasis on sanctions in the new system. To do so would mislead people into thinking that the driver behind the reforms is the reduction of the number of claimants, rather than helping more disabled people into work. Disabled people want to work, and if these reforms are successful then there should be no need to sanction people for non-participation in activities that will assist them back into the workforce."
	The DRC offered its views—it was not alone in doing so—on the Office for Disability Issues in its briefing for this debate. It said:
	"The Life Chances report established the Office for Disability Issues . . . to act as a co-ordinating body for disability policy across government. It reports to the Minister for Disabled People and must produce an annual report for the Prime Minister on the progress towards achieving equality for disabled people. The DRC supports this and the high level political recognition that it gives towards achieving equality for disabled people."
	I also agree wholeheartedly with its view that the ODI
	"also needs to ensure strong links with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights . . . to ensure that disability is addressed in a concerted way as an issue of equality and human rights."
	In turning to children with disabilities, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls), who recently introduced a ten-minute Bill entitled the Disabled Children's Assessment and Services Bill. It is supported by Contact a Family, the Council for Disabled Children, Mencap and the Special Educational Consortium, which have been working together for several years to raise awareness of the issues that the Bill addresses, and to press for change.
	The reason for the Bill's introduction is the lack of entitlement to services on the part of disabled children and their families. It would give disabled children the right to local authority assessment and to receive services such as short breaks, respite care and accommodation. It would also help to deliver on the Government's commendable May 2005 manifesto commitment, which states:
	"We will also ensure that services are designed to meet the additional needs of disabled children and their families".
	I am delighted that the Bill is receiving all-party support.
	The Bill's relevance is that some 770,000 children in the UK—7 per cent.—are disabled. Since 1975, there has been a 62 per cent. increase in the numbers of disabled children. That is due largely to medical advances, especially in the perinatal setting, that fortunately mean that more children survive. It costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child as it does to raise one who is not disabled. To their great credit, the Government have taken a huge number of children out of poverty, but 55 per cent. of disabled children's families still live in poverty.
	As the DRC has reminded us, 84 per cent. of mothers of disabled children do not work, compared with 39 per cent. of mothers of non-disabled children. It has also said that two-thirds of families in which neither parent works include at least one disabled parent.
	I know that the Government want to resolve those problems. The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton would make it clear in law for the first time that local authorities must assess disabled children and provide a range of services, such as short breaks and respite care, where they are deemed to be necessary. It would also encourage parents to ask for assessments, and for the services and support that they so desperately need. I welcome the proposals to encourage local authorities to think creatively about how to meet disabled children's needs, and the requirement that NHS bodies should work co-operatively with local authorities to promote the health and welfare of disabled children in England and Wales.
	My hon. Friend the Minister may think that I am overlooking Scotland. However, I assure her that I have put down an oral question on that very issue, for answer by the Secretary of State for Scotland next Tuesday.
	On the wider matter of children with disabilities, organisations of and for disabled people have argued consistently that adequate family support is crucial to improving the life chances of people with learning disabilities. They welcome the scrapping of the means test for the disabled facilities grant, which means that more families are able to make the vital adjustments to their homes that make it possible to provide appropriate care for disabled family members. However, other bodies, such as Mencap, want the limit for the grant to be increased from £25,000 to £50,000, in line with the recommendations of the review commissioned by the Government.
	Again and again, hon. Members are reminded at our surgeries that a few alterations—such as a walk-in shower, a ramp or better access to a bedroom—would make a world of difference to the quality of so many people's lives. That underlines how even the limited resources available to local councils can genuinely improve our approach to community care.
	The House would be surprised if I were to complete a speech on disability without referring to advocacy. Advocacy was at the heart of the Disabled Persons Act 1986, which I managed to steer through the House, and is especially urgent in respect of the needs of disabled children. The Children's Society has said:
	"Very few disabled children and young people currently have access to an advocacy service. Local authorities are only required to provide advocacy for children and young people making a complaint under the Children Act 1989. In practice, the majority of disabled children and young people placed away from home are not aware that they have the right to complain."
	It points out too that recent research shows that
	"only 5 per cent. of advocacy services targeted disabled children and young people".
	That figure is clearly far too low, and much more needs to be done if disabled children are to experience the fulfilment that I know that the House wants them to have. However, I am sure that we all very much welcome the decision by the Department for Education and Skills to provide funding, with the aim of promoting advocacy, to the Children's Society's disability advocacy project, and that we all wish that project well.
	I congratulate the Government on making that funding available, on their many other achievements in respect of disability rights, and on today's debate. As colleagues have often said, it may not be possible to add years to the lives of disabled people, but we have a chance to add life to their years.

Simon Burns: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). In her opening speech the Minister paid tribute to Alf Morris, to whom the House owes a debt of gratitude. To paraphrase the late Ian MacLeod, a debate on disabilities without the contribution or presence of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill would be a bit like a production of "Hamlet" without the gravediggers. [Laughter.]

Simon Burns: It was.
	The Government document on improving and enhancing the life quality of those suffering from disabilities ranges widely over many areas, but I should like to focus on two in particular. The first concerns education and children, albeit in a narrow and specific sense: children who suffer from dyslexia and dyspraxia. Dyspraxia, which is not as well known as dyslexia, is a neurological condition that causes children to suffer from varying degrees of short-term memory loss or concentration. It is becoming far more common place among young people, partly, I suspect, because it has only relatively recently been recognised and understood as a problem.
	We have known about dyslexia for far longer. I find it staggering that I have been a Member of this House for 19 years—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—and that it was only after I had been here for three years that my county council recognised the existence of dyslexia. One shudders to think what happened to children who previously were told that no such condition existed. Logically, no help was provided to assist them and to minimise their learning difficulties.
	Great improvements have been made over the past 15 years, but there is still a problem with statementing children and thereby recognising the problems that they are having with dyslexia. The problem is even more acute with dyspraxia and identifying the assistance that children need to secure the same opportunity to a full education as any other child. Such children need to be assisted with extra lessons and help from special needs teachers. When they are statemented, which sometimes can be a long and time-consuming process, the problem is ensuring that they receive enough time and help from the teaching assistants and specialist teachers who are best qualified to assist them.
	Dyspraxia remains less well understood and less well known. The help necessary is more complex, which in itself is a problem. Is it in the best interests of children with dyspraxia to remain in mainstream schools or to be educated in special educational schools that are devoted, conditioned and organised to give direct help? I believe that the latter is better. One cannot generalise because each child must be judged on his or her individual merits, but it is most unfair on children to be kept in a mainstream school if they cannot cope.
	I know a little boy who suffers from dyslexia and dyspraxia. He started his educational life aged five in a mainstream school. It was two years before anyone, including his parents, realised that he suffered from dyslexia and dyspraxia. For those who do not fully understand some of the manifestations of dyspraxia, a five, six or seven-year-old boy with a short-term memory it means will not necessarily remember what he is being told. If parents ask that child something, particularly a multiple-choice request such as "Go upstairs, put your pyjamas on, put your slippers in the bathroom and bring the towel downstairs," half an hour later when they go upstairs they find the little boy playing with his toys in his bedroom. Their immediate reaction is that he is misbehaving and being naughty, that he does not want to do as he was told because it is more fun and more interesting to play with his toys. In fact, because he had been given more than one instruction, by the time he got to his bedroom he had completely forgotten what he had been asked, so he did what he wanted to do. If parents and school teachers do not realise that the child is suffering from that condition they think that the child is misbehaving and not doing what he is told. The child will then suffer because he will be told off.
	Thus, at school, because of the lack of short-term memory, the ability to learn to read and write and to take very simple instructions from a teacher is lost; the child's concentration goes very quickly and teachers and parents feel that he is misbehaving and cannot be bothered to concentrate on his work when, through no fault of his own, his concentration has long since gone.
	Ritalin is one way to assist such children; on strict medical advice, under proper supervision it is a tremendous help for some children. I know that it is a controversial drug and that there are strong views on either side of the argument, but there is evidence that it can significantly help children, particularly during the school day, to concentrate and get on with their work.
	One must recognise, however, that a mainstream school may not be the best place for those children and their education. The little boy whom I knew started off in mainstream schooling, but within a year his teachers felt there was a problem because he was slow in developing his reading and writing and recommended extra lessons at the end of the school day. He had the extra lessons, which were extended to extra lessons on a Saturday, but it did not make that much difference. By the end of the next year, the school told his parents that he was dyslexic, and might be dyspraxic, and that it was not in his best interests that he remain at the school because, although he was getting extra lessons, he was not getting the help that his condition and abilities demanded but was holding back the rest of his class.
	I fully support the judgment of that little boy's teachers and parents. He was taken out of mainstream school and went to a specialist school—Fairley House, just behind the Tate, down the road from here—that looks after children who suffer from dyslexia and dyspraxia. The teaching ratio in some cases is 1:1 and the school helps children tremendously.
	The boy is now 14. He left mainstream schooling with a reading age three years behind his age, although one is meant to have a reading age about 18 months ahead of one's age. His reading age is now 12 months ahead of his age. His writing abilities are still 18 months behind his age—they should, of course, be ahead of it—and his writing is poor, but he has developed computer skills, which are a great help. He can concentrate and read fluently and he is beginning to contribute to his education in a way that a 14-year-old boy should. He can now be taken out of the special school and placed back in a mainstream school where there are specialist teachers to assist children among the mainstream pupils who need help with dyslexia and dyspraxia, without holding back his classmates and colleagues.
	That classic example shows that one cannot have a policy that says that all children who suffer from dyslexia or dyspraxia must be in mainstream schooling because that is inclusive. In theory, it might be a brilliant idea, but, in practice, it is too generalised and it is not such a brilliant idea. It can be harmful to both the individual child and other children, and the education of all of them can suffer as a result. Of course, in an ideal world, emphasis must be placed on as many children as possible, particularly with dyslexia and dyspraxia, being placed in mainstream schooling. However, in reality, either for the whole educational process or even just—

Roger Berry: Indeed. The 1995 Act imposed a requirement on access to stations in theory, but it specifically excluded trains from any requirements whatever. The policy was, "We think that it's a good idea for disabled people to have access to railway stations, but we don't care whether they can get on the train or not." That was the nature of the debate. I believe passionately that if a Labour Government had not been elected in 1997, the DRC, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, and the report that we are debating today would not have been introduced. I am glad that things have moved on—I look forward to the new conservatism with excitement beyond measure—but we would not be where we are if the Government had not made progress.
	I now move on to the welfare reform Green Paper, which is critical. Jobs are not everything, but jobs are probably the most effective way of enabling people to get out of poverty if they are able to secure employment. The subtitle of the Green Paper—"Empowering people to work"—shows precisely the right attitude. That is what I have always understood by welfare reform. I am pleased that that is the approach to welfare reform in the Green Paper. It must be said that that is in contrast to the approach set out in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. I am delighted that the contrast is great.
	Anyone who is in doubt about whether the Government are going in the right direction on these matters has, as always, only to read the Daily Mail. I read the Daily Mail the morning after the Green Paper was published, and there was a shock, horror headline, "Crackdown?" The article went on:
	"The 2.7 million on welfare won't lose a penny!"
	I thought, "That's great. That's fine." I did not expect welfare reform to be about taking money away from disabled people, so it was good news. The fact that the Daily Mail was irate encouraged me enormously. I must add, in all seriousness, that we then had the usual diatribe about scroungers and people living on handouts.
	I am delighted that no one in the Chamber today has resurrected the sort of language that not so long ago was used about people who were being asked to survive on incapacity benefit. I am sorry for the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, but the Daily Mail went on to say:
	"Conservatives immediately accused the Prime Minister of backing away from radical welfare reform".
	I am delighted that the Daily Mail got it wrong. The language today is entirely different from the sort of language that was printed in the Daily Mail.

Roger Berry: Well, nothing. The full quote from the Daily Mail was:
	"Conservatives immediately accused the Prime Minister of backing away from radical welfare reform in the face of a threatened rebellion from Labour MPs."
	Everybody knows that the concern was whether there would be benefit cuts. That is what the tabloids had been flagging up month after month. When we were told that the Tories had attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for not doing that, that was a point of some significance.
	Let us stay with the spirit of harmony and unity in the Chamber this afternoon. Let us accept that that to which I have referred is no longer Conservative party policy. I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that in due course the details of the Opposition's view on the benefits part of welfare reform, as opposed to the pathway to work part, will be interesting to observe. I hope in all sincerity that the focus is, as it is in the Green Paper, on tackling the problem by rolling out pathways to work, on giving people opportunities to work and on removing the barriers that prevent so many disabled people from working. This is not about taking away people's benefits.
	The focus of the Green Paper is absolutely right. It is not that the state provides a generous benefit to people through incapacity benefit. The problem is that many people cannot secure waged employment because of illness or disability and require assistance to do so. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was Secretary of State, he introduced the pathways to work pilot, which I warmly welcomed. That was exactly the right thing to do. I am delighted that the Minister and her colleagues have been building on that policy ever since.
	There are issues that need to be addressed. There is the question of the financial resources that are necessary to deliver the ambitious targets in the Green Paper. I welcome the commitment that we already have to £360 million of new money, but I agree with those who observe that if we are to achieve the target of enabling a million people on incapacity benefit to secure employment in the next 10 years, we will almost certainly require more resources than that. As the Government have rightly pointed out, if another million people secure employment the Exchequer makes a substantial saving: people in work do not receive the benefits to which they were previously entitled, and instead pay income tax and national insurance contributions. The saving that has been mentioned in previous debates is £7 billion.
	Others have alluded to the fact that joined-up Government should recognise that those savings would follow from an ambitious programme and could be invested in getting people back to work. I notice that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, the life chances report was cross-departmental. Four Departments have been involved in drafting an excellent report. Not surprisingly, the one Department whose name is not on it is the Treasury. I say that not as a criticism—I am second to none in my admiration for the Chancellor—[Interruption.] Somehow I do not think that my view on regime change will determine any such outcome.
	On the life chances report, as on similar cross-departmental reports, we do not have the Treasury's signature. That is understandable, but I hope that my good friend the Minister and her colleagues are having talks with the Treasury about ensuring that a substantial part of the savings in welfare benefit payments that come from people going into work will be used for further investment in achieving the target of a million people off incapacity benefit and into jobs. Some people speak of Treasury rules as if those drop from the clear blue sky. The Treasury makes its own rules. The Government make the rules. There is nothing to stop money being transferred in a sensible way. Not to make that transfer would be silly.
	I have argued before, and others have made the same point, that there is in the UK a powerful case for spending more on labour market programmes for disabled people, not just because, as I suggested, those programmes pay for themselves to a significant extent, but because UK spending on such programmes is quite low. It is about a fifth of the European Union average. Other EU countries are spending more on labour market programmes to support disabled people. I very much hope that we can move closer to the EU average, as we are doing, happily, in other areas.
	As my final comment on the finance issue, I shall take up what has been said about the access to work programme. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats: the access to work programme is probably one of the best kept secrets in Government—so secret that 75 per cent. of employers have never heard of it. To the Government's credit—the Minister will correct me if I have the figures wrong—the spending on access to work has been quadrupled under this Government. It has gone up from a miserly £15 million to £60 million a year. That is a significant improvement.
	Since the Department for Work and Pensions has noted—I almost said conceded, but I will not say that—that if it spends £1 million on access to work it gets £1.7 million back, because, as I said, people do not receive benefits but pay national insurance and income tax. The decision on any scheme that enables us to spend £1 million and get £1.7 million back in three or four years is a no-brainer. In that context, the £60 million does not seem very much. Recognising the simple economics of access to work, I join the Disability Rights Commission, and just about every other disability organisation, in saying, "Please, please can we consider putting more money into access to work?"
	Some of my constituents illustrate the case. I remember a teacher who became a wheelchair user after a motorcycle accident. The reason why he returned to his classroom so quickly was the support that he received from South Gloucestershire council and the access to work scheme. Money was available to help him make some basic adaptations and he was back teaching in his classroom far more quickly than he ever anticipated and far more quickly than I ever thought possible. Access to work is a very important instrument, helping disabled people to get back to work.
	As always, however, there is more to the issue than finance. When people require advice on employment opportunities and strategies for getting back to work, the advice that they receive from their personal advisers is critical, so there must be enough of them and they must be of good quality. There is a very ambitious target in the welfare reform Green Paper. Speaking as someone who visits job centres and voluntary organisations that assist disabled people to get back to work, I simply point out that, as of today, we are hardly suffering from an excess number of highly skilled personal advisers who fully understand mental health issues, access issues, the labour market and so forth. Given the likely salaries, it is not surprising if the advisers do not have the experience that is now demanded of them.
	We must ensure that our ambitious programme does not run into difficulties because of an insufficient number of skilled personal advisers. In that context, voluntary organisations play a crucial part. Many voluntary organisations that provide support for disabled people have contracts from Jobcentre Plus to do the work, precisely because they have the requisite expertise. I am not necessarily suggesting that it would not be better if more people in Jobcentre Plus appreciated the issues, but the important consideration is what delivers for the individual client—the disabled person seeking a job—and many voluntary organisations possess the expertise that many Jobcentre Plus units do not have.
	There is a real problem here. I visited a voluntary organisation in Bristol recently and found that the people working there were, like many others, on one-year contracts. If we are to achieve the ambitions of the Green Paper, we should try to ensure that where voluntary sector organisations have proved that they are delivering a good service and are benefiting many people by getting them back to work, the funding that we secure for them is rather better than one-year contracts. I hope that the Minister will take account of that. When I visited that voluntary organisation, I found that many of the people who had delivered for the last nine months were busy applying for jobs elsewhere, because they were unsure about funding for the next 12 months. That is not a sound basis on which to build active voluntary sector involvement in such an important sphere of activity.
	Other hon. Members have observed that, sadly, a large proportion of disabled people are still living in poverty, and I should like to add to the debate. Extensive studies—particularly the Joseph Rowntree Foundation research published 18 months ago, to which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred—have demonstrated that disability benefits are not out of control—for some reason, I am thinking of the Daily Mail. The benefits, which are substantially below the level that would ensure a decent standard of living, are not generous.
	There is also a danger of official Government statistics understating the extent of the poverty, because there are many costs of disability that obviously do not affect non-disabled people. The most expensive is probably the cost of personal assistants, interpreters for deaf people and so forth. Disabled people incur the costs of disability and, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out, when we take that into account, we find that the proportion of disabled people living in poverty is higher. The statistics quoted in the strategy unit report—I have checked them carefully—suggest that 27 per cent. of households with disabled people are likely to be poor, compared with 20 per cent. of households without disabled people.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report shows that that seriously underestimates the true extent of poverty among disabled people. If we are talking about life chances, we must bear that point in mind. As I have said, we must also consider whether the cost of heating for people whose condition requires them to keep warm should qualify them for the winter fuel allowance. The Government are not responsible for and cannot control fuel prices, but they can make the winter fuel allowance, which is welcome, and which is currently available to people over 60, available to severely disabled people—for example, those on the middle or higher rate of the disability living allowance care component or the higher rate of the mobility component, who we know must spend more on heating than others.
	A few days ago, the Minister and the Secretary of State attended a meeting with the all-party group on disability, where I pointed out that there is age discrimination in disability benefits. If someone secures DLA before they are 65, the benefit continues after 65, but if someone applies for DLA aged 65 years and one day, they cannot get it. It is an injustice that people who acquire a mobility impairment after the age of 65 cannot apply for DLA, which means that they cannot obtain the DLA mobility component. Without the DLA mobility component, they cannot apply for the Motability scheme, which means that they suffer because of age discrimination.
	I am aware that to remove age discrimination for DLA completely would be an expensive business, and there is no point my standing here and pretending that I do not know that. [Interruption.] The last figure that I saw was £3 billion, which is a lot of money. We must acknowledge in principle that age discrimination in disability benefits is wrong and that the attendance allowance that people can claim after the age of 65 is not adequate compensation. If it is not possible to correct that injustice immediately, I hope that the Government will consider moving in that direction by, for example, finding ways in which people can access Motability schemes without being in receipt of the DLA mobility component.
	Like several other hon. Members, I want to comment on independent living. User-led organisations are local organisations run and controlled by disabled people, and they are vital in supporting independent living. Recommendation 4.3 in "Improving the life chances of disabled people" states:
	"By 2010, each locality (defined as that area covered by a Council with social services responsibilities) should have a user-led organisation modelled on existing CILs"—
	centres for integrated living. Well, 2010 is only four years away. Will the Minister comment on that target in her winding-up speech? To my knowledge there are 35 CILs in this country, and some of them are losing local authority contracts, which is a matter for serious concern. I want to know how that recommendation will be achieved in four years' time, which will be a challenge.
	I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) in saying how pleased I was when the Government removed means-testing for disabled facilities grants for families with disabled children. That was a major step forward. Constituents of mine have been pushed into debt because of means-testing, or have been unable to go ahead with making adaptations. The statistics clearly indicate that a large proportion of those who apply for DFG to try to adapt their homes so that their disabled children can access facilities better do not go ahead because of the means-testing involved. I welcome that change, and thank the Government for it.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that the £25,000 maximum for the DFG needs to be updated. I support his suggestion that it should be increased to £50,000, as recommended in the Government-commissioned review undertaken by Bristol university. As a former employee of Bristol university, I naturally have to support its recommendations, but I generally do so in any case.
	I strongly believe that the Government have an outstanding record on disability. We have seen nothing like it before, and it would not have happened had not this Government been in office. Ever since the Minister—who is, rightly, widely respected inside and outside the House—got the job, she has, with her colleagues, engaged in discussions with disability organisations and other interested parties on how to go forward. We had a year's consultation before we got to the welfare reform Green Paper. I congratulate the Minister on that. Making policy after lots of consultation is far better than doing it before consultation. The life chances strategy has been widely welcomed by all hon. Members. Now we need a speedy and effective implementation of the report's recommendations. I very much welcome the Government's clear commitment to that objective.

Joan Humble: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), who obviously researched his contribution carefully. As someone who also represents a seaside area, I was listening for similarities between our areas. Interestingly, his reference to care homes reflects that as we get older we are more likely to be disabled. Sometimes, it is difficult to disentangle issues of the elderly from those of people with disability, which complicates matters for everybody.
	I open my remarks with a degree of trepidation, as the Minister referred at the start of her contribution to the fact that the debate in 2004 centred on civil rights. It is important, however, to start off with a reference to human rights and the universal declaration of human rights, which says:
	"All are equal before the law and are entitled . . . to equal protection of the law."
	I believe that human rights and civil rights underpin today's debate. All the interesting and well-informed contributions made by Members are based on the point that people with disability should enjoy the same rights that everybody else enjoys. That should be the template against which we measure any initiatives from central Government, local government and community groups.
	Before I consider the detail of the strategy unit report, I want to examine some of the definitions of disability. The Disability Rights Commission produces some helpful facts and figures and lists the many disabilities and conditions that people expect to be included by the term "disabled", from visual impairment to arthritis, cancer, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, depression—interestingly—and diabetes. Recently, the case of a man who is so obese that he finds it difficult to get through doorways or get into a bath—and who cannot bathe himself at home and therefore must go into a hospital setting for basic care—was brought to my attention. That illustrates that we must have an open mind about what constitutes disability and consider how it impairs people's everyday lives in relation to the social model.
	We have already heard some statistics about the number of disabled people. As I said, disability increases with age, and as the population is ageing, we need to be aware of that. The World Trade Organisation predicts that depression will be the leading cause of disability by 2020, which links to some of the comments made about the welfare-to work Green Paper. An increasing number of sick notes have depression or mental health issues on them rather than physical conditions. Only 50 per cent. of disabled people of working age are in employment compared with 81 per cent. of non-disabled people. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), I am a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, so I shall not comment on that issue—Members will have to wait for our report, which is to be published shortly. Disabled people are unable to use 70 per cent. of buses and 40 per cent. of the rail network. Almost 50 per cent. of disabled people list transport as their main local concern, and feel that their employment opportunities have been reduced because of poor public transport. Sixty per cent. of disabled people have no car in the household, compared with just 27 per cent. of the general population.
	We all have access to a range of statistics highlighting the nature of the problem and the importance, as well as the complexity, of addressing it. However, I do not want to underestimate or gloss over what has already been done I want to refer to some of the extensions of disability rights since 1997, of which I am immensely proud, and pay tribute to the Minister and her colleagues for all their work. Civil rights for disabled people have been strengthened in terms of access to goods and services and also public transport, although there is some way to go in that regard. We have seen the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and, in October 2004, the extension of employment provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That will protect an additional 600,000 disabled workers from discrimination.
	Many people are involved in those developments, and many people have benefited. Most recently, there have been the amendments tabled to the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, requiring public authorities to provide equality of opportunity for disabled people. All that has culminated in the strategy unit report. For a document of its size it is very readable, and it contains some very good recommendations. As other Members have said, it presents an ambitious 20-year vision, but we must start somewhere. We must also set an end date so that we can establish targets and measure successes. Otherwise, we shall have only warm words with no result at the end.
	The first key area identified in the strategy is independent living, which is the central issue of our debate. It involves the human rights of people with disabilities, who should be able to make choices. Members on both sides of the House have reiterated that services should meet the needs of individuals rather than individuals fitting themselves into services.
	The strategy unit's report, entitled "Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People", deals with that issue. It also states:
	"Historically, disabled people have been treated as being dependent and in need of 'care', rather than being recognised as full citizens."
	In a recent speech, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission, Bert Massie, took up the same point. He said
	"society still sees its best response to disability as care, welfare and charity—rather than equal rights, opportunities and citizenship.
	Our instinct is to protect.
	But in 'protecting' people we deny humanity rather than liberating it."
	I could not agree more.
	In a previous incarnation, when I was chair of Lancashire social services, I saw the best social work in practice when it took risks and extended boundaries instead of cocooning people, but there are questions to be raised about that as well. Liberating people is not just a matter of what is provided by local social services departments, or indeed of what the Government enshrine in law; it is a matter of bringing the whole community and the whole family into the debate.
	When I was chair of social services and trying to change things, and more recently over the past nine years as a Member of Parliament, I have discussed with parents the needs of their disabled children. Even when a disabled child is 40 or 50, a parent will often will want to protect that child. It is understandable and I do not criticise such parents, but the challenge is to give the disabled person freedom to go out into the world, to explore and to make his or her own decisions. That is not an easy task for anyone. As we change the law here and as local authorities and other providers respond, we must bring people with disabilities and their families with us. We should all be working together, and recognising the basic rights of people with disabilities to make choices, to be given freedoms, and not always to be cocooned.
	I am proud to be chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social care here at Westminster. We changed our name this year from the all-party social services panel, but given what has been said about care, perhaps we should think of changing it again—possibly to something incorporating the word "independence". In any event, we should all be working together to improve the life chances of people with disabilities by promoting independence rather than dependence on care.
	In enabling independent living, we should focus on four key values: choice, control, freedom and equality. That way, we will improve life chances. I welcome the move to direct payments, which will enable people to make choices, and I am looking forward to the assessments of the individual budget pilots. Bringing together sums of money from various different budget heads will give people with disability more freedom and flexibility in determining their own care packages. They will be able to purchase a package that responds to their individual needs.

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate and am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who is not in the Chamber at this point. I found her contribution and her first-hand experiences extremely valuable and the debate has been all the better for them.
	I want my contribution to be quite brief. The objective of any Government strategy on disabled people must be to focus on improving those people's quality of life and opportunities. We have heard of many achievement of which we can proud, but they must be viewed as a stepping stone towards more challenging, but hopefully more rewarding, reform.
	We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Minister and from other Members that, before my time here, the House passed the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, which gave rise to the commission and its statutory duties to promote equal opportunities and eliminate discrimination in this area. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 amended and extended the 1995 legislation. In addition, while in government, Labour has introduced the new deal for the disabled, which has resulted in more disabled people being in work than ever before—about 750,000 more than in 1998. Working tax credits for disabled workers have delivered further support to many people once they have returned to work.
	The experience, however, is not always good. Difficulties are still evident as some disabled people seek out the necessary support. I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the Minister's attention instances in which people have come to me with first-hand experiences of cases in which wheelchair users and those with sight problems are not benefiting from even good advice, let alone the best advice. That can create additional damage and further isolate and demoralise the people on the receiving end of that poor advice, and it does nothing for us as a society in general.
	I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to meet the small group of people who have contacted me about their difficulties so that she can hear for herself, at first hand, where there are still gaps in the system that we can address. In addressing them, we would improve the quality of life of many more people, as well as the economic and social condition of our country. It is only by listening to the people who are affected by disability that we can best deliver the help and support that is required.
	The Government are removing a significant number of boundaries. The DWP document, "A new deal for welfare", to which the Minister and other hon. Members referred, sets challenging targets for increasing employment opportunities for disabled and incapacitated people. One of the aims is to reduce the number of employees who leave work because of disability. That is very important, but it is a role that employers must approach responsibly. We have heard some disturbing comments today about the role of and experiences provided by some employers.
	Employers must see the value of the person, not the disability—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I agree with the Government that employers, local authorities and health professionals and the Government need to come together to deliver the best results, but employers must have a much better understanding of our objectives and expectations and the role that they will play in delivering the objectives, and I say that as someone who has been an employer for 20 years.
	The Minister will remember attending a recent meeting with me on the very subject of support for the disabled, and I am sure that she will have been heartened by the general response of most of the people present that night—whether disabled or able-bodied—and the recognition that we have done a lot and that we are planning to do even more. However, in bringing my brief contribution to an end, I urge the Minister and the Department to be aware that we must always keep listening to the experts in the field—the individuals who live with disability every day in life.

Henry Bellingham: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks). I was in the Chamber when he made his maiden speech, and he has just made a very good short contribution. Certainly, one of the aspects that he brings to the debate is his business experience. I hope that the Minister will meet his delegation and take on board what he said about the role of employers.
	We have had a very constructive, wide-ranging and positive debate, and I have always maintained that both parties have a good record on disability and disabled people. The previous Government had an excellent record, as was pointed out by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). The late right hon. Nick Scott was a quite superb Minister for the disabled. Indeed, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was a very distinguished holder of that office. It is a pity that in the past—not so much today—Ministers and Government Members have been somewhat grudging and patronising in their view of the Conservative party's record on such matters when in government. The time has come to accept that our record in government was good. This Government's record is also good, and I certainly welcome what they have done. I give credit to them for the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, for the welfare reform Green Paper and for the report, "Improving the life chances of disabled people". They have been working hard. They have had a series of very imaginative and hard-working Ministers. Indeed, the current holder of that post is no exception.
	There is a very long way to go indeed. When one looks at some of the statistics, one sees that disabled people have a lower employment rate than any group. Only about 50 per cent. of disabled people of working age are employed. Furthermore, disabled people who are working earn 30 per cent. less than non-disabled people. More than 40 per cent. of disabled people are low-skilled. About 25 per cent. of disabled people of working age are over 50. More than 50 per cent. of families with disabled children are in or near child poverty—so there is still a long, long way to go.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned one of my concerns when he referred to the life chances report. According to the report, the target is that
	"By 2025, disabled people in Britain should have full opportunities and choices to improve their quality of life, and will be respected and included as equal members of society."
	That is a very long way off, and we must all have the ambition of ensuring that we achieve those goals well within the 19 or 20-year framework that has been laid down. Any Government should have ambitions to achieve those targets before 2025, so we must try to do so.
	Her Majesty's Government are right to advance a programme to tackle welfare reform, but that is largely a debate for another day. I applaud the Minister, however, on her comments on the transition to adulthood. I think that she used the words, "cliff edges", to characterise the position of young adults who suddenly find that the support that was in place suddenly disappears: they have nowhere to turn, as there is no provision for them. I am pleased, too, that hon. Members on both sides of the House drew attention to the serious problems faced by parents who have children with learning difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has a great deal of experience in this area, and he pointed out that the statementing system for children of school age is onerous, bureaucratic and in dire need of reform. When those children become young adults and take part in training schemes, many of them live at home with their parents, but often things come to a crunch when they reach another cliff edge and they have to move out, perhaps because their parents have to go into a residential home or they pass away. I have dealt with many constituency cases in which young adults with learning difficulties become middle-aged adults with learning difficulties. Often, the support system does not offer them anything once their parents pass away. The Government should look at that problem very carefully, and I hope that the Minister will address it in her winding-up speech.
	We heard some good examples of initiatives that are under way in hon. Members' constituencies. I pay tribute to the West Norfolk disability information service in my constituency and its director, Jonathan Toye, who works tirelessly to ensure that disability rights are always at the top of agenda of local authorities and other Norfolk bodes. King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and Norfolk county council have an excellent record of doing all that they can to help disabled people and ensuring that their service provision takes into account the rights and interests of disabled people. Both councils have a long and distinguished record of doing their level best and achieving very high standards indeed.
	I asked Jonathan Toye to update me on facilities for disabled people in my constituency and the immediate priorities. Overall, the picture is encouraging. Most local businesses have responded to the challenge, and are doing exactly what they should. It is not just a question of helping disabled people and of providing facilities for them but of making the right business decisions. He cited a couple of food outlets in my constituency. Pauline's Pantry is a small sandwich bar in King's Lynn that has recently invested in disabled facilities and has gone from strength to strength. It is very disabled-friendly, and it has been awarded an accolade by the Eastern Daily Press. He cited a larger delicatessen/restaurant called Norbury's, which has recently undertaken a major refurbishment programme and has taken on board the requirements suggested by WNDIS. Both those businesses should be congratulated. I visited one of them recently, and I know that both are going from strength to strength.
	Mr. Toye said that there is a slightly larger business in King's Lynn, the Duke's Head hotel, which has not listened entirely to the advice that was put to it. He hopes that some of the larger businesses will take on board exactly what he and his colleagues have said. As I have said, it is good for businesses to be disablement friendly.
	Mr. Toye mentioned also the dial-a-stop bus service, which collects people with limited mobility from their homes and is working well. Unfortunately, the space that has been allocated for the service is quite a long way away from the main part of the bus station. Most of the people with limited mobility who come into the centre of King's Lynn want to shop at Sainsbury's. They want to visit the shops and the services in the middle of the town. It would be a great deal easier if they could be set down near to King's Lynn museum, where there is an available stop. Unfortunately, the county council is not being as helpful as it might be. I have written to the council and I hope to have a positive reply.
	At the margin, life for disabled people can be made a great deal easier where authorities put a certain amount of imagination and common sense into the equation, think first about disabled people and work out whether taking a small step in the right direction could make a significant difference to people's lives.
	I will not speak for much longer because I was not in the Chamber for the entire debate. However, I think that we have had a constructive debate. It has brought into focus several key issues. I hope that the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), will touch on other points, such as the role of carers and the problems that many disabled people face not because there are not enough benefits, but because accessing the benefits is extremely complicated. Quite often, disabled people are given different opinions and advice.
	Carers, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey said, are saving the Government £57 billion a year. I hope that the Minister will touch on respite care. I hope also that the Minister and the shadow Minister will take up the serious problems that we are all facing in our constituencies because of the added burdens and regulations that are placed on small care homes. It is a sad fact that many of these homes are closing.
	The UK has come a long way in its treatment of disabled people. It has come a long way also in how it has opened up many new horizons for disabled people. I hope that we will achieve the aims laid down by the Government long before 2025.